Making a Killing with Animal Welfare ReformA Meat and Dairy Industries Article from All-Creatures.org

FROM

Almost everyone agrees that animals ought
not to suffer any more pain or harm than is “necessary”, and that no one
should inflict unnecessary pain or suffering on another. But what is
considered “necessary” has historically and legally meant whatever is
necessary to optimize the economic efficiency of any socially-accepted use
of animals. It is still the case – as it always will be as long as animals
are property and economic commodities – that animal welfare standards permit
any cruelty, no matter how severe, as long as it results in optimizing
economic efficiency.

As more people become aware of how
beneficial the dietary aspects of veganism are for our health and the
environment, and recognize that being vegan is simply a matter of basic
justice, veganism will be recognized more and more widely as nothing less
than an ethical imperative and a moral baseline.

“When it comes to animal care policies and processes, count on us to
lead the way. In fact, we’re recognized by the world’s foremost experts
in animal well-being as setting the standard for America’s pork industry
– and we’re applying those same best practices to our global
operations.”
- Smithfield Foods: “Raising the Bar in Animal Care” (Smithfield Foods
is the world’s largest pork producer and processor, and kills almost 30
million pigs every year)

During the past 200 years, animal exploitation – from backyard breeders
to “factory farms” to circuses – has been steeped in the animal welfare
paradigm. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to find any large
corporation using animals or selling animal products that does not boast of
either their own high standards of animal welfare, or the high expectations
they have of their suppliers. In short, the animal industry actually
promotes animal welfare, and that is largely because the animal welfare
model overwhelmingly benefits industry – not only by providing guidelines
which help producers to adopt a more effective business model, but also by
assuring consumers that it is possible to breed, raise, exploit, and
slaughter animals in an ethical way.

But what are considered “high standards” in animal welfare? High
standards generally allow for any well-established industry practice that
helps producers to exploit animals in an economically optimal manner, no
matter how cruel, harmful, or painful. That is, any cruelty that promotes
economically efficient use is acceptable (such as branding, castration,
forced insemination, dehorning, detoeing, debeaking, mulesing, tail docking,
teeth clipping, forced molting, and more); but cruelty above and beyond that
which promotes economically efficient exploitation is considered to be a
violation of industry’s “high” welfare standards. In other words, kicking
and beating your animals because you enjoy doing so is not okay. Dehorning
and castrating your animals without anesthetic because it makes them easier
to manage is okay. This definition of “high standards” in animal welfare
explains why industry can legitimately make such ludicrous claims in the
face of cruelty so severe that most of us refuse to even look at it.

When prominent animal welfare organizations like PETA and HSUS propose
animal welfare reforms, such as a move toward “controlled atmosphere
killing” or the elimination of cages and gestation crates, their campaigns
involve appealing to industry to recognize the long-term economic benefits
of investing the capital necessary to make such changes. Such economic
benefits include healthier animals who are less stressed, fewer worker
injuries, less carcass damage, and greater consumer confidence that animals
are treated “humanely.” And sure enough, such economic benefits obviously
carry weight, as we can see by the fact that large factory farms like those
owned by Smithfield Foods are “leading the way” in phasing out gestation
crates over several years in all sow “farms” owned by the company. Think
they’re doing this out of concern for the pigs? Think again.

From msnbc.com:

Smithfield is making the change because customers ‘have told us they
feel group housing is a more animal-friendly form of sow housing,’ …
Smithfield is still determining the cost of the changeover but does not
expect it to dramatically affect prices for its pork products because
the expense will be spread out over 10 years and will be offset by
production efficiencies,’ Dennis Treacy – vice president for
environmental and corporate affairs said… He stressed that the decision
to change was based on what makes sense for the business.

This statement confirms that phasing out crates will make it easier for
Smithfield Foods to conduct and grow their operations. And what are their
operations? Confining and slaughtering animals – by the millions. Not an
activity in which you would expect animal activists to be collaborating,
right? And yet, rather than using the same time and resources to promote
vegan living, animal advocacy organizations spent over $1.6 million dollars
and countless volunteer hours on the campaign to convince Smithfield foods
to adopt this more economically-efficient business model.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, animal advocacy organizations also work
side by side with the animal industry in developing and promoting “humane”
labels for animal foods. Not only does this sort of “product development”
consulting provide invaluable public relations assistance for these
companies, but it also effectively gives these products the “animal people”
stamp of approval when they reach the consumer. Although these programs may
appear on the surface to offer greater protection for animals, it is
painfully clear that they are designed as an (albeit very clever) PR
campaign to increase sales, by making consumers feel better about using
animal products. These labels, which include Certified Humane Raised &
Handled, Humane Choice, Freedom Food and the Whole Foods 5-Step Animal
Welfare Rating Standards, could quite reasonably be viewed as the ultimate
betrayal from the perspective of the victims.

The partnership between animal welfare groups and industry to promote
economically efficient animal exploitation is considered a “win-win-win” not
only for both sides of the partnership, but for consumers as well. Consumers
are assured that they can be excused for their indulgences in the products
of animal misery, due to these so-called “higher standards” of welfare, and
welfare groups win by receiving tens of millions of donation dollars
annually for acting as the industry “regulators” and the developers of these
ridiculous labels.

But the biggest winners, by far, are the animal exploiters themselves,
who not only receive consulting advice by “welfare experts” and prominent
animal activists, but are also given awards and special endorsement from
advocacy groups. The payoff they receive in increased consumer confidence
must have them laughing all the way to the bank. Meanwhile, the most basic
rights of an increasing number of animals are still being sold out to
fulfill the trivial desires of those who insist on consuming and using the
products that come from their bodies.

Almost everyone agrees that animals ought not to suffer any more pain or
harm than is “necessary”, and that no one should inflict unnecessary pain or
suffering on another. But what is considered “necessary” has historically
and legally meant whatever is necessary to optimize the economic efficiency
of any socially-accepted use of animals. It is still the case – as it always
will be as long as animals are property and economic commodities – that
animal welfare standards permit any cruelty, no matter how severe, as long
as it results in optimizing economic efficiency.

But times and circumstances are changing, and so are attitudes toward the
meaning of the word “necessary”. Today, an increasing number of people are
becoming aware that almost all of our uses of animals are for nothing more
than our pleasure, amusement, or convenience – the habitual consumption of
animal-based foods; the custom of wearing animal-based fabrics; the
tradition of watching animals participate in trivial (and very harmful)
activities such as racing or performing. None of these uses can be
considered necessary according to any coherent definition of the word
necessary.

As more people become aware of how beneficial the dietary aspects of
veganism are for our health and the environment, and recognize that being
vegan is simply a matter of basic justice, veganism will be recognized more
and more widely as nothing less than an ethical imperative and a moral
baseline. Certainly, there will always be those who refuse to acknowledge
the fact that our uses of animals require the violation of the most basic of
rights, regardless of the scale on which these practices are carried out.
But the abolition of animal slavery is nothing less than the most important
social justice issue of our time. When this fact becomes widely recognized…
whose side will you be on?

Fair Use Notice: This document, and others on our web site, may contain copyrighted
material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners.
We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use
of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use,
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.